January 2005: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejects the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s emergency motion against Prop. 200. The group asked the court to block some provisions from going into effect.

May 9, 2006: Native American tribes and community and Latino groups ask a U.S. District Court judge for an injunction to block the state from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and for identification at the polls.

June 2006: In a 15-page decision, a U.S. District Court judge turns down a request to suspend requirements that people prove their citizenship when registering to vote, writing that “determining whether an individual is a United States citizen is of paramount importance when determining his or her eligibility to vote.”

September 2006: A U.S. District Court judge denies the injunction. The plaintiffs appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

October 2006: A two-judge panel of the 9th Circuit grants the injunction, blocking the proof-of-citizenship and identification requirements. Election officials appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturns the panel’s injunction, allowing the requirements to be enforced again.

April 2007: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, weighing the appeal of the September 2006 U.S. District Court decision, denies the request to put the citizenship requirement on hold until the lawsuit is resolved.

August 2007: A U.S. District Court judge issues a summary judgment against nine of the plaintiffs’ claims, including that Prop. 200 constituted a poll tax. A pair of complaints remain: That it is an undue burden on legal residents and disproportionately affects minorities.

August 2008: A U.S. District Court judge upholds the provisions requiring residents to show proof of citizenship in registering to vote and ID at the polls. U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejects claims by Latino and Native American advocacy groups that the law constitutes a poll tax and disproportionately impacts minority voting. Silver notes the state’s interest in preventing voter fraud.

September 2008: A civil-rights group files an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, again calling into question the constitutionality of the law.

October 2010: The 9th Circuit strikes down Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship when people register to vote, in a 2-1 decision with Arizona native and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sitting on the panel. Judges did not rule on Prop. 200’s requirement that voters show identification at polls.

April 2011: The 9th Circuit agrees to reconsider its decision, rehearing the case before an 11-judge panel of the court.

June 2011: Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne blasts President Barack Obama for getting involved in the lawsuit. The Department of Justice files court documents supporting a decision by the 9th Circuit to strike down the proof-of-citizenship provision.

April 2012: The 9th Circuit’s 11-judge panel holds that Arizona can require voters to show identification at the polls and proof of citizenship when they register to vote with a state form, which is typically the form voters get from their county recorder’s offices and through the Motor Vehicle Division’s website. But, in the 9-2 decision, the court rules the state cannot require citizenship documentation for voters who fill out a federal form.

June 2012: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy orders a temporary stay of the 9th Circuit’s decision in response to state officials claiming they could not “ensure fair federal elections” with the changes coming “on the eve of a new election cycle.” The Supreme Court then lifts the stay without comment, allowing the ruling to stand.

July 2012: Horne asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 9th Circuit’s decision based on constitutional grounds, arguing the state has the right to require proof of citizenship with all voter-registration forms, including the federal form.

August 2012: A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix in effect codifies the decision by the 9th Circuit, ordering Arizona to accept federal voter-registration forms without proof of U.S. citizenship but allowing state forms to require the documentation. The judge also orders that the state must make the federal forms readily available and state personnel must be informed of the change in the law and instructed to comply.

October 2012: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments on Prop 200.

March 2013: Horne presents arguments before the Supreme Court in support of Arizona’s voter-registration law vs. voter-rights advocates.

June 17, 2013: In a split, 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Arizona can continue to require people to prove their citizenship with documents on a state-issued form. But the court rules, the state can not require residents using a federal government voter-registration form to do the same.

Posting a comment to our website allows you to join in on the conversation. Share your story and unique perspective with members of the azcentral.com community.

Comments posted via facebook:

► Join the Discussion

azcentral.com has switched to the Facebook comment system on its blogs. Existing blog comments will display, but new comments will only be accepted via the Facebook comment system. To begin commenting, you must be logged into an active personal account on Facebook. Once you're logged in, you will be able to comment. While we welcome you to join conversations, readers are responsible for their comments and abuse of this privilege will not be tolerated. We reserve the right, without warning or notification, to remove comments and block users judged to violate our Terms of Service and Rules of Engagement. Facebook comments FAQ

Join thousands of azcentral.com fans on Facebook and get the day's most popular and talked-about Valley news, sports, entertainment and more - right in your newsfeed. You'll see what others are saying about the hot topics of the day.